MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Evaluation of Inelastic Higher-Mode Effects on the Seismic Behavior of RC Structural Walls

2020· article· en· W3002983402 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Fatemi, Patrick Paultre, Charles‐Philippe Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear wallReinforced concreteStructural engineeringStructural systemShear (geology)Nonlinear systemMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most midrise and high-rise reinforced concrete (RC) buildings rely on RC structural walls as their seismic force resisting system. The contribution of higher lateral modes to the elastic response of RC structural walls produces base shear forces significantly larger than those resulting from the static code procedure. The relative contribution of higher lateral modes increases due to an additional dynamic effect occurring while the RC wall is yielding at the base. Accordingly, the first-mode contribution saturates and reduces as its corresponding period elongates and higher modes assume a more relative contribution. This paper describes an original pseudodynamic hybrid test that has been used to experimentally measure the shear amplification during an earthquake excitation of a model shear wall structure. The experimental results show that the shear amplification factor due to nonlinear higher modes effects can be larger than 1.5. Additionally, the test results indicate that the modern structural codes appear to be conservative in calculating the shear force resistance of RC structural walls.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207